Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals the PRO requirement and 403 error for lower tiers, and outlines return fields. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, data update frequency, or any side effects, though the read-only nature is implied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact with clear sections for Args and Returns. It earns its place without excessive verbosity, though some repetition of schema descriptions is slightly redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-param data retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: authentication, parameters, and return fields. Yet it omits guidance on parameter combinations (e.g., whether period is required) and data coverage limits, leaving some ambiguity for agents.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description simply repeats the same parameter definitions as the schema (e.g., symbol, start_date, period). It adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as providing financial earnings forecast data ('业绩预告'), with parameter and return details. It distinguishes from sibling data tools by its specific focus on forecast announcements, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'express' or 'indicators'. It only states the PRO tier requirement, which is an access constraint rather than a usage guideline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.